Garmin Switzerland GmbH v. FLIR Systems Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Garmin Switzerland GmbH (Switzerland) and Garmin Corp (Taiwan)
  • Defendant: FLIR Systems, Inc. (Oregon) and FLIR Maritime US, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Tonkon Torp LLP; Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
• Case Identification: 3:17-cv-01147, D. Or., 07/24/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Oregon because Defendant FLIR Systems, Inc. is incorporated and has its principal place of business in Oregon. Venue over its subsidiary, FLIR Maritime US, Inc. (Raymarine), is asserted based on alleged acts of infringement in the district and the assertion that Raymarine has a "regular and established place of business" in Oregon, in part through the control exercised by its parent company.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s marine chartplotter products, featuring "Autorouting" and "Tracks" functionalities, infringe patents related to automated marine route calculation and path backtracking.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves automated navigational aids for marine environments, specifically software algorithms that create safe travel routes by avoiding charted hazards and that compress traveled paths for efficient storage and retracing.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Defendants FLIR Systems and Raymarine are petitioners in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding challenging the validity of the ’703 patent. The complaint also alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant Raymarine with notice of infringement of the ’703 patent on December 11, 2015, a date which may be relevant to potential claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1996-11-15	’987 Patent Priority Date
2002-10-01	’987 Patent Issue Date
2003-09-18	’703 Patent Priority Date
2007-01-01	Garmin launches Auto Guidance technology (approx.)
2007-09-11	’703 Patent Issue Date
2014-08-01	Raymarine allegedly begins offering "Autorouting" feature (approx.)
2015-12-11	Garmin notifies Raymarine of alleged ’703 patent infringement
2016-04-01	Raymarine releases LightHouse II software upgrade with "Autorouting"
2017-07-24	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,268,703 - "Methods, Systems, and Devices for Cartographic Alerts"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge that conventional GPS navigation, which often plots a direct straight-line course, is inadequate for marine use where numerous unseen or difficult-to-track hazards like shallow water, rocks, or bridges exist between a start and end point (Compl. ¶47; ’703 Patent, col. 1:12-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes an electronic marine navigation device that automates route planning. It receives user-defined parameters (e.g., minimum safe water depth for a specific boat) and a desired destination, then consults onboard cartographic data to automatically calculate a navigable course that avoids hazards by creating a path through one or more intermediate, "non-user selected" waypoints (Compl. ¶46, 48; ’703 Patent, col. 5:20-51).
• Technical Importance: This technology sought to significantly improve the safety and convenience of marine navigation by automating the complex, time-consuming, and error-prone task of manually plotting a safe course around known obstacles (Compl. ¶46).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 20 and dependent claim 19 (Compl. ¶70, 107).
• Essential elements of independent claim 20 include:
  • a processor;
  • a user interface for receiving one or more preselected conditions (e.g., water depth) from a user;
  • a location input for receiving a first location and a separate potential waypoint; and
  • a memory with cartographic data, where the processor uses a "marine route calculation algorithm" to analyze and "re-route the course to avoid the preselected conditions by identifying one or more non-user selected waypoints." (’703 Patent, col. 14:22-40).
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (’703 Patent, Compl. ¶115).

U.S. Patent No. 6,459,987 - "Method and Apparatus for Backtracking a Path"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that in the 1990s, GPS devices had severely limited memory, making it impractical to store the thousands of data points that constitute a detailed traveled path. This limited the ability to accurately save and retrace a route (Compl. ¶53; ’987 Patent, col. 1:47-58).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method and device that use a point-reduction algorithm to analyze a recorded forward path and create a simplified "backtrack path." The algorithm intelligently selects a smaller subset of the original data points that preserves the essential shape of the route, thereby enabling storage and accurate retracing of the path without consuming excessive device memory (Compl. ¶52-53; ’987 Patent, Abstract). The detailed description explains that the algorithm works by iteratively finding the point farthest from a straight line between two endpoints and, if the distance exceeds a threshold, adding that point to the simplified path and repeating the process on the new sub-segments (’987 Patent, col. 8:36-65).
• Technical Importance: This invention provided a critical function for early, memory-constrained GPS devices, allowing users to safely backtrack on a proven path in conditions like fog or to save and repeat enjoyable trips (Compl. ¶52, 54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claim 11, which depends from claim 9 (Compl. ¶126-127).
• Essential elements of independent claim 9, as incorporated into dependent claim 11, include:
  • A GPS receiver device with a memory for storing a set of data points corresponding to a forward path;
  • A processor connected to the memory for computing a backtrack path by selecting a subset of those data points; and
  • The processor determines which points to include in the subset based on the distance of a data point from a "computed straight line between said beginning and said end of said forward path." (’987 Patent, col. 8:4-25).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• A range of Raymarine-branded marine chartplotters, including the "a series," "e Series Hybrid Touch," "eS series," and "gS series," as well as "DragonFly" branded products (Compl. ¶70, 126).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are electronic marine navigation devices that display GPS position on electronic charts (Compl. ¶74-75).
• The functionality accused of infringing the ’703 Patent is marketed as "Autorouting" or "Easy Routing." This feature allows a user to input vessel-specific parameters (e.g., safe depth, height, beam) and select start and end points, after which the device automatically generates a suggested safe route on the chart (Compl. ¶81-86, 93-95).
• The functionality accused of infringing the ’987 Patent is marketed as "Tracks" and "Routes." The "Tracks" feature automatically records a vessel's path as a series of points. The user can then convert this recorded track into a "Route," a process which the complaint alleges involves creating a simplified path with a "minimum number of waypoints" (Compl. ¶65, 68). The complaint alleges these features were introduced around August 2014 (Compl. ¶58).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’703 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 20)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a processor	The Accused Products contain a processor to operate their functions.	¶77	col. 3:15-18
a user interface operatively coupled to the processor, wherein the user interface receives one or more preselected conditions from a user	The products have a graphical user interface where users can input "user defined settings" for automatic route generation, such as "Minimum Safe Depth," "Minimum Safe Beam," and "Minimum Safe Height." A screenshot from a user manual shows a table for these settings (PX 7 at 146).	¶78-82, 86	col. 4:32-49
a location input operatively coupled to the processor, wherein the location input receives a first location and a potential waypoint separate from the first location	The products' touch screen and/or keys serve as a location input, allowing a user to select a start position and an end position (potential waypoint) on the chart display to begin the route-building process. A screenshot from a manual illustrates a user selecting start and end points on a chart (PX 7 at 147).	¶87-91	col. 4:51-61
a memory operatively coupled to the processor..., the memory having cartographic data... wherein the processor operates on a marine route calculation algorithm to analyze a course... and re-route the course to avoid the preselected conditions by identifying one or more non-user selected waypoints.	The products use memory cards containing cartographic data. The "Autorouting" or "Easy Routing" software is alleged to be a "marine route calculation algorithm" that analyzes the cartography in view of the user's preselected conditions to automatically generate a safe route, which is composed of non-user selected waypoints.	¶92-95, 100-101	col. 5:20-40

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The complaint notes that the accused "Autorouting" feature is dependent on the "cartography vendor," listing "Navionics®" and "C-MAP by Jeppesen" (Compl. p. 24). This raises the question of whether the accused device's processor is itself performing the claimed "marine route calculation algorithm" and "identifying" waypoints, or if it is merely displaying a pre-calculated route supplied by the third-party cartography data on the SD card.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused products "identify one or more non-user selected waypoints" as that term is understood in the patent, versus simply plotting a colored path or line? The dispute may focus on whether the output of the accused feature is a set of discrete, automatically generated navigational points or merely a graphical overlay.

’987 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
memory having stored therein a set of data points, each said data point of said set corresponding to a geographic position on a forward path	The "Tracks" feature automatically records and stores an on-screen trail made up of a "series of track points" corresponding to the vessel's journey.	¶131	col. 8:31-32
a processor... for computing a backtrack path by selecting a subset of said data points of said set	When a user converts a recorded "Track" into a "Route," the system is alleged to compute a new path by selecting a subset of the original track points. A manual excerpt states this process uses the "minimum number of waypoints." A diagram shows a winding track being converted to a route with fewer, straighter segments (PX 7 at 144).	¶132, 134	col. 2:2-5
...wherein said processor determines when to include each data point... based upon a distance from the geographic position represented by the data point and a computed straight line between said beginning and said end of said forward path.	The complaint alleges "on information and belief" that the method for selecting the subset of points is based on the distance of a point from a straight line between the beginning and end of the path, matching the specific algorithm disclosed in the patent.	¶136-137	col. 8:15-25

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: The central point of contention will likely be the specific algorithm used by the accused "Routes from Tracks" feature. The complaint alleges, only "on information and belief," that the algorithm matches the patent's specific method of measuring distances from a straight line segment. The defense may argue that its point-reduction algorithm is different and non-infringing (e.g., based on turn detection, fixed time/distance intervals, or a different curve-simplification technique). The discovery process will be critical to determine how the accused feature actually works.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term: "non-user selected waypoints" (’703 Patent, cl. 20)
• Context and Importance: This term is at the core of the automated routing invention. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused "Autorouting" feature generates points that meet this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant could argue their system simply creates a suggested path or line, not discrete "waypoints" in the traditional navigational sense.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes re-routing a course to avoid preselected conditions, which logically requires defining a new path. Any automatically generated vertices or points that define this new path could be considered "non-user selected waypoints" created for the purpose of avoiding an obstacle ('703 Patent, col. 16:59-62).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent frequently uses the term "waypoint" to refer to user-defined start and end points (e.g., 'a potential waypoint'). A defendant might argue that to be a "waypoint," a point must have specific navigational properties beyond simply being a vertex in a line, a meaning the term carries in the art. The use of the specific term "waypoints," rather than a more generic term like "points" or "vertices," may suggest a more limited scope.
• Term: "selecting a subset of said data points" (’987 Patent, cl. 11)
• Context and Importance: The infringement of the ’987 patent hinges on whether the accused "Routes from Tracks" feature performs this specific action. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the accused system generates a simplified route using newly calculated points that approximate the original path—rather than picking directly from the original set of recorded points—it may not infringe.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's abstract describes a "point-reducing algorithm" used to "reduce the forward track to a backtrack route," which broadly supports the idea of starting with many points and ending with fewer. The overall purpose is data reduction, which is achieved by selecting a subset.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s flowchart and figures (e.g., Fig. 6) detail a process where a specific point "L" from the original path is identified and added to the new path if it meets a distance threshold ('987 Patent, col. 9:57-65). This supports a narrower reading where the final backtrack path is composed exclusively of points that existed in the original, larger data set.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents. The theory is that Defendants instruct and encourage end-users, through user manuals and marketing, to use the accused chartplotters in an infringing manner—specifically, by combining the devices with map SD cards to enable the "Autorouting" and "Tracks/Routes" features (Compl. ¶116-118).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of the ’703 patent based on Defendants' alleged knowledge of the patent since at least a December 11, 2015 notice letter from Garmin (Compl. ¶124). It alleges willfulness for the ’987 patent based on knowledge from the same time frame (Compl. ¶137).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A key evidentiary question will be one of algorithmic proof: For the ’987 patent, can Plaintiff produce evidence beyond "information and belief" to prove that the accused "Routes from Tracks" feature uses the specific point-reduction algorithm claimed in the patent (i.e., measuring a point's distance from a straight line segment), or does it use a different, non-infringing method?
• A core issue for the ’703 patent will be one of functional attribution: Does the accused "Autorouting" feature perform the claimed "marine route calculation algorithm" and "identify... non-user selected waypoints" itself, or does it merely act as a display for a route that is pre-calculated by and embedded within the third-party (e.g., Navionics, C-MAP) cartography data?
• A significant procedural question is the impact of the parallel IPR: How will the pending inter partes review of the ’703 patent, initiated by Defendants, influence this litigation? An outcome from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that invalidates or narrows the asserted claims could be dispositive of that portion of the case or lead to a stay pending its resolution.